"Over 60% of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East and Egypt holds the keys to this region stability. Nobody knows for sure where this Street Revolution in the Wikileaks time will lead this nation, but one thing is clear that this fire could spread very fast and, as you can guess, Oil markets are controlled by not so democratic regimes in general with their own agenda. We will doubt that the health of western consumers will be the number one concern on their mind in the future.

This almost "perfect" Oil Demand Supply scenario from IEA on the chart above has accounted for "Crude Oil: fields to be found" - politically correct way to scream about Oil Shortage in the nearest future. Nobody was even thinking about any pressure - like Egypt eruption - on the world oil supply markets. We are not calling for panic now, but for how long can we continue to rely on the Oil map above to carry up our economies?

"Egypt on TV screens screams about Oil Age coming to an End - our recovery is too fragile to sustain the coming Oil Shock - we have the way out now and we can chose what to do next. At the certain level of Oil price all worries and concerns related to Electric Cars will be gone - you will be just happy to be able to drive."

Facebook is great, but how are we going to drive in five years time? What are we going to eat for that matter with Oil above 150 dollars again?

There is almost no money available now in U.S. or Canada to advance the Lithium and REE exploration, apart from few names everybody is talking about now. The rest of the sector will be funded by the Asian interest in the end."

When China slashed export quotas of fundamental minerals in 2010, it awakened America to a danger that has been building for more than a decade, experts say.

Those minerals, called "rare earths," shape a modern nation's defense and economy.

Your iPhone and hybrid car won't work without them, nor will your laptop computer. The Pentagon needs them for its precision-guided "smart" bombs.

China has locked up the supply — stripping the United States of its dominance.

U.S. lawmakers in both parties blame China's "mercantilist" policies — state interference in international trade. Yet, the United States and other nations also were caught napping, according to members of Congress, lobbyists and industry experts.

Consider:

• China produces 97 percent of the rare earths used in high-tech items such as fiber optics, flat-panel monitors and televisions, and electricity-generating wind turbines.

• Through export policies and tariffs, China forces foreign companies to manufacture there in order to remain competitive. And where manufacturing goes, research and development often follow.

• China dominates more than rare earths. It leads the United States (or even the rest of the world combined) in key elements such as germanium, indium, antimony, zinc, manganese, tungsten, magnesium, cadmium, pig iron, graphite and fluorspar.

Those materials, used to make alloys, feed China's surging steel industry. A decade ago, China and the United States produced roughly equal amounts of steel; in 2010, the United States produced about 90 million metric tons — to China's 630 million.

• China is acquiring even more foreign resources. While most of the world fell into recession in 2008, China went on a spending spree: It bought all or part of 184 foreign mining assets for $37.2 billion, according to the U.S. accounting firm Ernst & Young.

In contrast, the United States began selling its reserves in the 1990s.

China has positioned itself to surpass the United States in purchasing-power parity — a closely watched measure of an economy's real size — next year, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit international business association.

China, he says, "had the foresight to say, 'We want to be a manufacturing country. There are critical components to that in terms of raw materials, and we're going to make sure that we have unfettered access to those supplies.'

"And now it's (their) goal as a country not to export those raw materials. It is to export finished products."

John Pike, a defense expert and director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based website analyzing military and intelligence matters, says "we cannot pretend there's a free market when there's not."

Ronald Ashburn, executive director of the Association for Iron & Steel Technology, a Warrendale-based nonprofit promoting industrial research, says China controls "huge aspects of the world capacity for many materials."

Congressional staffers, speaking on background, agree.

"China is going to produce, whether they are making a profit or not," says a Democratic staffer who has studied the issue for years. Its mining companies "are willing to get hammered" financially in order to gain control over markets.

A Senate Republican staffer says the federal government has backed American firms, but "people didn't like it. But they do like jobs — and mining jobs are good jobs."

Three bills countering China's rare-earths policies were introduced in the last Congress by Coffman, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, D-Erie, who lost re-election in November.

Each bill involved some degree of government intervention. None won approval.

Dahlkemper's bill emerged at a sensitive moment — during China's brief rare-earths embargo on Japan in September. A spooked House passed it, 325-98, but the bill lost momentum as the midterm election neared and China relented.

Like Coffman, Murkowski plans to try again.

Many Republicans, however, caution against going too far, too fast.

In a statement, 10 GOP congressmen on the committee that sent Dahlkemper's bill to a House vote said federal loans "should be restricted to those areas not undertaken by the private sector," to avoid "favoring certain companies ... and potentially crowding out further private-sector investment."

Yet, in 2009, Zhao Shuanglian, vice chairman of the Mongolian Autonomous Region, told a different story.

According to Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, Zhao said exports would be cut "to attract more Chinese and foreign investors into the region ... . We are aiming to make Baotou in Inner Mongolia into a world-class rare-earth industrial base."

He calls it a national-security concern as well as an economic issue. Those who disagree "don't realize that the prime cause of wars throughout history has been access to raw materials. There are people who have no sense of history, and I find that deeply troubling."

ERODING U.S. POSITION

China leads in the production of many minerals, yet rare earths best illustrate the consequences.

They reflect how China used a long-term plan to develop a critical industry while the United States lost its footing.

Nearly 20 years ago, China's then-leader, Deng Xiaoping, reportedly proclaimed: "There is oil in the Middle East. There are rare earths in China. We must take full advantage of this resource."

The full weight of his remark was widely overlooked.

First, the 17 elements called rare earths are not really so rare — just difficult and costly to mine.

Second, many of their special magnetic or electrical properties were less essential two decades ago.

Finally, the United States then led in production of rare earths, principally from a mine in eastern California called Mountain Pass, owned by a company called Molycorp.

The nation was a major producer of rare-earth products, including neodymium iron boron magnets (neo-magnets) required for militarily sensitive items such as "smart" bombs.

Yet, America's position began to erode. By the mid-1980s, China accelerated production of rare earths and flooded world markets with cheap materials.

Molycorp, meanwhile, faced investigations and a lawsuit for allegedly degrading the environment. Then owned by the oil company Unocal, it closed its Mountain Pass mine in 2002 — leaving America with no production of rare earths, according to securities filings.

The mine's closure largely went unnoticed.

China, however, busily secured commercially minable rare earths at home and abroad. In 2005, the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp. tried to buy Unocal, but U.S. backlash against selling an American oil company to a Chinese government firm blocked the deal.

In 2009, China Nonferrous Metals Mining Co. Ltd., another government enterprise, bid to acquire Lynas Corp., an Australian firm with plans to develop what its website calls the world's richest deposit of rare earths. Australia's government barred the Chinese firm from taking a controlling interest.

Yet, China did not simply buy raw materials.

A decade earlier, in 1995, two Chinese government-backed companies — together with Sextant Group, a private-equity firm headed by Archibald Cox Jr., son of the former Watergate prosecutor — bought Indiana-based Magnequench, one of the last U.S. makers of neo-magnets.

Magnequench's unique manufacturing process was developed by General Motors — and the Chinese wanted it, according to Stanley Trout, a former Magnequench scientist.

Cox pledged to keep Magnequench plants in America for five years. After that time passed, the plants were moved to China.

Japan's Hitachi Metals closed the last U.S. neo-magnet plant — in Edmore, Mich. — in 2005.

With that, the United States not only stopped mining rare earths but stopped manufacturing neodymium products altogether.

AWAKENED TO CHINA'S POWER

The world began to notice China's dominance of rare earths when it tightened exports about seven years ago, says Jim Sims, Molycorp's public affairs director.

China also began slapping taxes of 15 percent to 25 percent on rare-earth exports, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Yet, nothing awakened the world so much as three recent actions.

In mid-2010, China announced export reductions of 72 percent, Sims says. Then in September, it embargoed rare-earth exports to Japan, following a territorial dispute over small uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

In December, it set further export cuts of 35 percent.

And on Dec. 30, the People's Daily, the Chinese Communist Party's newspaper, hinted at more tightening. It quoted "experts" as saying recent cuts "did not seem deep enough."

Like much of the world, Japan depends on China's rare earths. It uses the elements to build neo-magnets 10 times smaller and 100 times more powerful than standard ferrous magnets, Sims says. Each Toyota Prius hybrid car uses 2.2 pounds of neodymium for its electric motor and 22 to 33 pounds of lanthanum for its battery.

China's actions stunned Japan. Some rare-earth prices leaped 700 percent while others doubled, according to Bloomberg News. Toyota has said it will work to reduce its use of rare earths.

World demand is 134,000 metric tons while production is at 124,000 metric tons, according to the Congressional Research Service. It predicts demand will be 180,000 metric tons in 2012.

The difference is made up by stockpiles.

Japan and South Korea have those.

The United States does not.

A SCRAMBLE TO COMPETE

Setting quotas is one thing. Getting China's far-flung enterprises to abide by them is another.

The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 20 that 2010's actual cuts were less than officially set.

Still, the recent nationalization of 11 rare-earth mines in southern China and the announcement of more quota reductions leave little doubt among experts that China is determined to reduce rare-earth sales abroad.

Investors have taken notice.

In July, a reconstituted and independent Molycorp Inc. completed an initial public offering of 29 million shares, netting $378.6 million, according to securities filings. In mid-December, it raised $130 million from Japan's Sumitomo Corp.

Molycorp also applied for $280 million in government-backed loans and said last week it will sell $172.5 million in convertible preferred shares.

It aims to mine about 40,000 metric tons of rare-earth oxides by 2013.

Across the world, other companies are searching for rare-earth deposits.

Minable quantities are believed to exist in Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, according to Congress' Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. Interior Department has identified sources in Alaska.

The U.S. Geological Survey pinpoints other potential sites.

Problems solved, right?

Wrong.

That same GAO report said that, once companies find minable resources and the money to develop them, actual production can take seven to 15 years, principally due to state and federal regulations.

Mining is step one — and the easiest — in a five-step process to bring products such as military-strength magnets to market, according to Green.

For instance, until 2014, Hitachi Metals holds the patent on neo-magnets. In December, Molycorp and Hitachi said they will form joint ventures this year, removing one obstacle for the American firm.

Yet Ed Richardson, president of the U.S. Magnet Materials Association, says much uncertainty remains about the deal, including where a plant will be built. He does not believe Hitachi will transfer technology to Molycorp, which "doesn't have the knowledge to do this" alone.

America also lacks skilled rare-earth experts. In the 1980s, the U.S. magnet industry employed 6,000 workers, according to Richardson's association. Today's figure: 400.

An even greater gap exists at the scientific level's top echelon. The United States has about 60 scientists and engineers with specialized knowledge of magnet production, to China's 6,000, Green says.

"U.S. leadership in (rare-earth element) technology is eroding," according to a Carnegie Mellon University report. It found that the end of U.S.-based manufacturing "led to the removal of over 90 percent of domestic R&D activities on rare-earth permanent magnet materials."

Conclusion: The "knowledge for producing (neo-magnets) within the U.S. has been lost."

"The knowledge drain is a long-term strategic problem" for America, Molycorp's Sims acknowledges.

Molycorp has hired 20 scientists and is seeking more "as fast as we can," according to CEO Mark Smith. He says the company has contacted retired Japanese experts interested in helping the American firm.

Peter Dent, vice president of business development at Electron Energy Corp. in Landisville, Lancaster County, outlines the challenge: "Japan, China and Germany are extremely good. ... Molycorp is going to have to be competitive against people who are doing very well. It's a big hill to climb."

Thomas Sanderson, deputy director and senior fellow on transnational threats for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, is equally pessimistic.

"In some ways, it's too late," he says, because China "bought up the market. It will be difficult for us to regain our position. Some skills and industries are perishable."

Coffman, the Colorado Republican, disagrees, "mostly because we don't have a choice. The fact is, the national security and the economic security of the United States are dependent upon the United States not allowing itself to be in a position where it can be dominated."

Leitner, the former Defense Department official, believes everything can be turned around by a "catalytic event" that galvanizes the nation.

"All it takes is a threat, a sudden change," he says. "Politicians swing like cafe doors."

EYE ON TECHNOLOGY

China may have provoked such a threat by raising exports, hiking taxes and briefly embargoing Japan.

One who thinks so is GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike.

"The Chinese policy is potentially devastating to China since it's awakened the world," he says. "It depends on whether people have long ... or short memories.

"We don't see as much China-bashing as is warranted by the facts of the matter."

On a recent trip to China, CSIS's Sanderson heard leaders there express concern that "maybe (they've) been a little too aggressive."

So why did they do it?

China's long-term strategy is to use raw-material advantages to lure Western companies, just as Vice Chairman Zhao told the Chinese news agency in 2009.

The near-unanimous consensus of those interviewed is that China's domestic demand for rare earths is in industries dominated by multinationals producing high-tech items such as wind turbines, batteries, cars, fiber optics and electronics.

China wants to replace those foreign manufacturers with its own companies.

The Harvard Business Review reported last month that China is weary of attracting companies that hire cheap Chinese labor. It wants that technology for itself, which foreign companies often give away to gain access to China's markets.

Since 2006, the magazine reported, new Chinese rules "seek to appropriate technology from foreign multinationals."

"The (Chinese) government's hope is that the country will soon become a global innovation center," enabling "Chinese companies to overtake their foreign partners," the magazine concludes.

And foreign companies keep coming.

Following China President Hu Jintao's U.S. visit earlier this month, General Electric agreed to help Aviation Industry Corp. of China to develop advanced avionics for China's new C919 aircraft.

The C919 will compete with the Airbus A320 and Boeing's 737 Next Generation jetliners. The new deal involves technology transfer.

As Coffman sees it, America's China problem is partly self-inflicted.

"Part of it," the congressman says, "is that we've been asleep at the switch when we think China will operate along the lines of free-market principles and not use its leverage ... like (it has done) with rare earths."

We have found information on the recent developments from the source - DBM Energy stands behind its claims about the world record drive in Electric Car on one charge. Situation is definitely far from the the crystal clear, but we will not discharge the lithium battery technology break through with Lithium Metal Polymer Battery all together at this stage - we will monitor the situation. This invention is too big to keep it on the shelf and out of independent public verification.

"Last week we saw the news on numerous websites about the new magic battery from German start up DBM Energy, which allows to power an Electric Car for...600 km! We were digging the information and now can tell you - that if this information will be confirmed - we have a breakthrough in lithium battery technology. We do not know the cost of this battery at this moment, its specific power and other specs, but claims are so impressive, that we still need further confirmation and verification by the third parties.Over 300 Wh/kg - to put it in perspective - Nissan Leaf 24 kWh battery will be in this case 80 kg! Now weight of the battery pack for Nissan Leaf is 300kg.Renault Fluence 22 kWh battery weight is 250 kg.Lifetime of 2500 Charge cycles without degradation - if you drive 200km every day and have to charge this battery every 3 days - you have 20 years of lifespan of this battery! Everything with a solid 10 year warranty will work for Electric Cars mass market. Solution so far was 8 year warranty by GM Volt and Nissan Leaf and Renault actually announced that they will lease the lithium batteries - we called it the breakthrough for EV mass market at the time. 6 min charge time for 100 kWh - it is important to know with what kind of a fast charger it was done, but in anyway - if battery can sustain 2500 cycles with this kind of fast charger - it is another breakthrough. Question will in Charging Infrastructure, but it is 6 min for 100 kWh - too good to be true.

and it is ... LMP Lithium Metal Polymer!

Even if these claims will be true by only half in a normal market and industrial conditions we, maybe, have already stepped in another era for EVs. Lithium and REE resources will gain their strategic importance overnight now. Confirmation of these claims by DBM Energy means that we can move today to Electric Cars, even without the claimed cost advantage vs "normal" lithium cells technology. Even if the price now will happen to be the same as known technology - mass market production of electric cars will bring prices of the batteries down faster than 8% per year according to Elon Musk from Tesla Motors."

Due to the repetitive demands on the record run, and fire, we would like to answer some of the most frequently asked questions.

What we have received 275,000 euros in funding to date?

The goal was to build in cooperation with the Federal Ministry of Economics in 2010, a demonstrator proving that travel can be with the hummingbird Alpha polymer technology, a distance of 300 km under daily use conditions with a daily use electric vehicle without sacrificing comfort and without reloading. The funding and are based only on the construction of a demonstration object not designed for the development of battery technology, this is no funding in recent years have been.

Has a neutral technical scrutineering take place?

The Audi A2 was rebuilt before the trip from the DEKRA tested with battery technology and approved for road traffic.When examining the vehicle, there were no adverse comments.

The appointed notary should have been canceled on short notice?

On the transportation of a notary, we have not because it is assessed according to information of the invited for the appointment notary, the eyewitness record of a notary public to legally no different than that of other witnesses.

The record run was accompanied by about 30 witnesses. Were involved including the ADAC, other press representatives and employees of the Federal Agency for Technical Relief, the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). In addition, eight security experts always within sight of the vehicle. There is also a GPS log (plant) on the basis of the Protocol can understand exactly where, at what time, how fast and how much the vehicle was traveling. There you can also understand that we have come to about 60 kilometers in about Allershausen in a traffic jam. The planned stop at a rest stop after 323 miles Frankenwald can be based on the GPS track to prove exactly. Manipulation of the car or at the battery, such as a recharging unobserved, can be ruled out completely with this protocol.

The Audi A2 will also be gone on the tour for 20 to 30 minutes from the field ride-journalists?

Since the vehicle was traveling at an average speed of around 98 km / h, it is incomprehensible why the journalists vehicle more than once to have been able to follow our Audi A2. We were the slowest vehicle in the convoy. It is true that the Audi A2 at the agreed destination Berlin Dreilinden arrived some minutes later when some of the support vehicles. It should exceed 600 km route from visual impact, the symbolically important mark. back down To achieve the research objectives, over 300 km on a daily use of an electric vehicle and battery charge, this detour was irrelevant. Also during this time we had a permanent escort.

What are the consequences of the loss of the test car for the company?

We had planned for the end of last year, to reproduce the record run with the Audi on a neutral chassis dynamometer, according to a clearly defined procedures and under the direction of the DEKRA. We would have facts rather than speculation about our battery. A new test vehicle is now being prepared at present and is already available at the end of February for the long-range test at Dekra available. It is important to emphasize that it is the battery cells is not a unique. The battery cells themselves are freely reproducible. We have indeed in other areas already operating successfully. The loss of the vehicle for us, therefore, only very limited consequences.

Raises the fire the company off course?

No. At our destination, leading to the battery also suitable for use in electric vehicles to market, nothing has changed. In some market segments, such as industrial technology, we have already reached the market. Even in operations of Hummingbird battery in stationary applications, ie for temporary storage of electricity from wind power and photovoltaic systems, we continue to work with full steam. A first energy storage for such purposes, we have already been delivered.

Can we say something to fire at the warehouse or to the progress of the investigations of the state criminal office?

We are unfortunately stopped by the investigating authority to give any information in order not to jeopardize the ongoing investigation. We can only say so much, neither the vehicle nor the DBM Energy responsible cause of the fire.

Industry sources said we should have speculated that it might constitute a fire at the warehouse to a stop envious competitors. We believe it is absolutely not effective to set up such boards speculation. They also lack any foundation. All this is now the duty of the prosecutor.

Electric Cars are coming on our streets and utility companies are getting ready to charge our future. All naysayers will be proven wrong in the end - we could only dream about the numbers of Electric Cars to be on the streets when they will put sizable constrain on the existing grid! This time will come and it will be matter of technological progress and investment into the smart grid to accommodate the new demand for electricity and flexible grid management.

It is a manageable task and presents an investment opportunity on its own. Who are the big players here - corporate "cream de la cream": GE, Google, Siemens, SAP, ABB and utilities companies world-wide amongst others. We are confident that they will manage to make electricity available for our Electric Cars in time.

Electricity could be produced from the number of sources, some of them could be renewable and their share will increase dramatically in the years to come - Oil comes from depleting source and can not sustain our Energy diet any more.

"This almost "perfect" Oil Demand Supply scenario from IEA on the chart above has accounted for "Crude Oil: fields to be found" - politically correct way to scream about Oil Shortage in the nearest future. Nobody was even thinking about any pressure - like Egypt eruption - on the world oil supply markets. We are not calling for panic now, but for how long can we continue to rely on the Oil map above to carry up our economies?

"Egypt on TV screens screams about Oil Age coming to an End - our recovery is too fragile to sustain the coming Oil Shock - we have the way out now and we can chose what to do next. At the certain level of Oil price all worries and concerns related to Electric Cars will be gone - you will be just happy to be able to drive."

We take it you've hear of the phrase "We are what we eat" - our financial and regulation authorities must be all eating nuts these days. The guy with 10 million dollars "under management" can control 10% of the U.S. Gold Futures - welcome to post-crisis risk management!

But this is nothing; the excuse for the correction in Gold will seize to be valid in time. Speaking of time, now is the time to make your shopping list of your favorite juniors. Gold has easily found buyers during recent retracement after incredible run, and now is poised for another uphill battle with the wall of worry.

On a daily chart, we are at the same level on MACD as we were at the last correction in the beginning of August, just before Gold and junior miner's 2010 home run.

Below on weekly chart we have a strong bullish candle, while the STO is close to potential reversal - the way how the Gold market held this recent correction provide us with comfort that this Bull is far from over - the juniors miners in particular will ignite the next leg up.

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Hedge fund SHK Asset Management liquidated a U.S. gold futures position this week valued at over $850 million, more than 10 percent of the main U.S. futures market, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

As a result of the move, which was made on Monday, the number of gold contracts on CME Group Inc.'s Comex division plunged by more than 81,000, to about 500,000, in their biggest single fall ever, the WSJ reported. It said an average daily move is about 3,000 to 5,000 contracts.

Daniel Shak, who runs the $10 million fund, told the newspaper that the trade had been profitable for him for years, but it stopped working and the exchange kept raising his margin requirements, forcing him to put up more money.

Shak said that when the exchange raised it by 25 percent on Monday, he decided to cut his losses and end the trade, the newspaper said.

About Me

Legal Disclaimer

Small Print

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns."

Bernard Madoff.

All opinions expressed on this Blog are personal opinions of its authors, they do not represent any official position of any companies they can be involved with now, have been involved in the past or will be involved in the future. We have chosen our anonymity as the way to protect our freedom of thinking.

There are NO Qualified Persons among the authors of this blog as it is defined by NI 43-101, we were NOT able to verify and check any provided information in the articles, news releases or on the links embedded on this blog; you must NOT rely in any sense on any of this information in order to make any resource or value calculation, or attribute any particular value or Price Target to any discussed securities.

We Do Not own any content in the third parties' articles, news releases, videos or on the links embedded on this blog; any opinions - including, but not limited to the resource estimations, valuations, target prices and particular recommendations on any securities expressed there - are subject to the disclosure provided by those third parties and are NOT verified, approved or endorsed by the authors of this blog in any way.

There is No intent of any copyright infringement in any way from the authors of this blog, we are relying on the Creative Commons in our work and in case if any owners of any content provided on this blog would like us NOT to use it, please indicate so in comments immediately.

Statements in articles on this blog other than purely historical information, historical estimates should not be relied upon, including statements relating to the companies' future plans and objectives or expected results, are forward-looking statements. News releases contain certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions and are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the companies' business, including risks inherent in resource exploration and development. As a result, actual results may vary materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.

This site does not constitute investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is anything on this site a recommendation to invest in any security, or any other instrument, nor is this site to be relied upon when making investment or other decisions.

No Liability: No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made by this Blog, its associated companies or any other person as to the reliability, accuracy or completeness of this site. In no event will authors or any of their associated companies or any of their partners, directors or other employees be liable to any person for any direct, indirect, special or consequential losses or damages of any kind arising out of any use of this site or in reliance on it from time to time, including without limitation, any loss of profit, business interruption, loss of programs or data on your equipment or otherwise.

SRSrocco reports on further deterioration of the COMEX Gold inventories available for deliveries. You can guess who is taking now a...

Total Pageviews

Dedicated to all those brave men who have been fighting the bear market in 2000 and buying the dips without understanding that they were looking straight into the abyss. Do not trust your money in anybody, for you are the one who is going to be rich or poor, not those that are advising you: always do your DD. Disclosure: We are putting our money where our mouth is.